"These figures provide information on how many drivers who have come forward and reported problems with their vision to the DVLA had their licenses revoked or refused.

"I will be continuing to seek further information to ensure that robust measures are in place to check drivers’ vision, so we can continue to improve road safety. For most people it is simply a matter of getting their eyes tested to ensure they have glasses or contact lenses if required."

The responsibilty is on drivers to state when their eyesight is too bad to drive, but police can undertake roadside vision tests.

Under Department for Transport rules, all drivers should be able to read a number plate from 20 metres away, with glasses or contact lenses if necessary. They should also be able to pass an eye test with an optician and have an adequate field of vision.

A regular mandatory eye sight check for holding your driving licence would be good. Relying on self checking doesn't seem to work.
The chance of ever being checked by the police is low (unless you are in an accident).

How about having a "check box" on the licence stating wether the holder requires corrective lenses to drive. Then if the person does get pulled the officer can see (no pun intended) at a glance wether the driver is legal or not.

Wow, isn't it required by the UK law that employees undergo a general medical checkup every once in a time, like once a year or two years? It's obvious to me that people doing such dangerous jobs should be tested regularly - aren't they?

How about having a "check box" on the licence stating wether the holder requires corrective lenses to drive. Then if the person does get pulled the officer can see (no pun intended) at a glance wether the driver is legal or not.

The standard EU driving licence lasts for 10 years. A lot can happen in that time. My eyesight was fine for years and I only needed glasses for working at the computer. And then my eyesight declined and I needed glasses all the time. That's why having a checkbox saying vision aids required on the driving licence wouldn't work. The problem is, that many people suffer a decline in their eyesight and pretend it hasn't happened.

True. And what is more, it might be impossible for the police officers to determine whether the driver is wearing his contact lenses or not (and what optical power - is that the proper English name of this parameter? - they are).

A simple and cheap workaround would work like this. Each police car is equipped with a unique "license plate dummy". In case of doubt during regular control, the officer would simply walk away 20 metres from the driver and present them the "plate". Should the driver fail the test, they would be required to undergo professional medical tests to determine their actual sight quality.

My wife is a Dispensing Optician, and they are not allowed to report people with bad eyesight who should not be driving to the DVLC believe it or not. She often mentions an 80 year old with tunnel vision who has is a a complete liability. They can write to the patients GP and recommend advice to give up driving, but it appears some GPs are reluctant to restrict old peoples "self mobility".
Totally Stupid to me.

No problem - the idea Mikroos put out isn't a bad one at all and I wonder what Stumpy would say in terms of how easily it could be implemented.

What Gary says is worrying. Surely people's mobility shouldn't put others at risk? My father's getting old and his driving isn't what it was. It's still ok and he's not a danger but there will come a point in the next few years when he'll have to stop. My brother, my sister in law, my wife and I have all discussed this already and we're all monitoring his ability. It'll be a difficult subject to have to broach but we're in agreement on it.

Mikroos' idea wouldn't work unfortunately, as well meaning as it is. The rules are actually to be able to read a number plate 20.5 metres away in bright daylight. I forget the specific wording but the ambient light has to be more than adequate and that affects how well one sees quite drastically. It also takes no account of peripheral vision and depth perception defects and the test cannot be done in poor light or at night-time.

The law does need tightening up though and there is no reason why a bi-yearly opticians check linked to DVLA cannot be done. That will test for adequate driving eyesight 9with correction if needed) and go a decent way to ensuring better safety on our roads. If you buy a new TV they check to see you have a licence at the buyers address which is done almost behind your back. The law is sooo daft and outdated a lot of the time.

I forgot to add that my wife is still recovering 3 years after being shunted from behind as she waited at a red light after being hit by an elderly gent at over 30mph. He said he did not see the queue of traffic stopped or the red light. He wasn't prosecuted after he volunteered to surrender his licence.... He could of killed people crossing the road. He knew his eyesight was bad and probably knew for a long time yet continued to drive. We most certainly do need stricter controls.

@Critchio - a roadside test conducted by a police officer is more than enough as a preliminary test. It's just like a roadside sobriety test conducted in the US - it's not perfect but is effective enough to be used and catch many people who should not drive in their condition.

I am fully aware the method is far from perfect but if it was backed up by a test conducted by a professional, it would be much better than nothing and would cost close to zero.

Like I said before, however, I just can't understand how British drivers can work with no obligation to undergo a regular medical checkup. That would eliminate even more problems.

Mikroos' idea wouldn't work unfortunately, as well meaning as it is. The rules are actually to be able to read a number plate 20.5 metres away in bright daylight.

If the wording was changed to be "in bright daylight or with headlamps on" then it would become straightforward in any weather conditions: put the suspect in the passenger seat of the police car, turn the lights on, walk 20.5m.

Mikroos' idea wouldn't work unfortunately, as well meaning as it is. The rules are actually to be able to read a number plate 20.5 metres away in bright daylight. I forget the specific wording but the ambient light has to be more than adequate and that affects how well one sees quite drastically. It also takes no account of peripheral vision and depth perception defects and the test cannot be done in poor light or at night-time.

The law does need tightening up though and there is no reason why a bi-yearly opticians check linked to DVLA cannot be done. That will test for adequate driving eyesight 9with correction if needed) and go a decent way to ensuring better safety on our roads. If you buy a new TV they check to see you have a licence at the buyers address which is done almost behind your back. The law is sooo daft and outdated a lot of the time.

I forgot to add that my wife is still recovering 3 years after being shunted from behind as she waited at a red light after being hit by an elderly gent at over 30mph. He said he did not see the queue of traffic stopped or the red light. He wasn't prosecuted after he volunteered to surrender his licence.... He could of killed people crossing the road. He knew his eyesight was bad and probably knew for a long time yet continued to drive. We most certainly do need stricter controls.

Eyesight is only one factor. To a greater or lesser extent, hearing, heart condition, proneness to fainting, or fits etc, all need to be taken into account.

To maintain a pilot's licence, even a Private Pilot's Licence (PPL) which does not permit you to fly for "hire and reward" you have to undergo full medical checks with a qulified and accedited doctor at regular intervals, initially every five years reducing to 2 years, then 1, then 6 months as you grow older. You can pass if you can meet the eye test with corrected vision, but I don't think you can pass with colour blindness.

And this is for a pursuit which is extremely unlikely to cause damage or harm to anyone besides yourself and perhaps the occasional passenger. How much more appropriate then where your incompetence or negligence can wipe out entire families?